beatrizayrees

[beatrizayrees]

I hope Apolo comes back, maybe she just needs some time.

It's really sad that some pages I liked have been disabled. First it was Rey and now @apoloadonisandnarcissus. This should be an environment where people can rate and write about what they like, but it's become hostile, so I completely understand this decision.

[beatrizayrees]

It's really sad that some pages I liked have been disabled. First it was Rey and now @apoloadonisandnarcissus. This should be an environment where people can rate and write about what they like, but it's become hostile, so I completely understand this decision.

[beatrizayrees]

Haladriel is toxic on both sides. The fact is that Sauron has more power in this dynamic, but Galadriel is responsible for his damnation, not his salvation. She was so preoccupied with her revenge that it was what fueled Sauron. She aroused him, manipulated him, and tempted him with power, even though he wanted to follow a path of redemption. And then she spent decades lusting after power, the power of the one she should only abhor. But in the end, she chose good and was forgiven. The dynamic is toxic, but not abusive. Her journey to peace hinges solely on her rejection of power. This is something that will permeate for a long time. Like it or not, this dynamic will not be forgotten because some people don’t like it. If it’s canon you’re concerned about, then that’s canon.

[beatrizayrees]

Misogyny disguised as an appeal to canonicity

I've seen many excuses in my life for excluding women from narratives. The latest? "Canonicity". This is how some fans — in their eagerness to appear cultured, demanding, or simply "protectors of the work" — hide a latent and ancient misogyny, painted in the colours of textual purism. The Rings of Power series, which dared to make Galadriel a warrior, complex, fierce and, above all, a protagonist, has become the target of the revisionist movement that calls for fidelity to the books only when it comes to men.

It's symptomatic. When we talk about bringing Celeborn into the series, we're talking about "fixing" Galadriel, it's not about deepening a relationship or enriching the world. It's about control. This cursed verb appears in whispers and between the lines of posts and videos: "Galadriel needs to be controlled", "she needs balance", "Celeborn will bring sobriety". And when they talk about balance, what they mean is: she needs to be pruned. Because an angry woman, wounded by pain, brave enough to defy Sauron himself, seems to bother more than the Dark Lord himself.

These criticisms are not innocent. They are symptomatic of a culture that only tolerates women when they are silent, when they are supporting actors, when they love and die for men — never for themselves. And that, for me, is at the heart of this disguised misogyny.

You want "canonicity" so much, but you forget the women who are part of the canon and are solemnly ignored.

Let's talk about Inzilbêth. She is the mother of Pharazôn, the man who defines the last and most tragic days of Númenor. But she's not just any mother. She is a descendant of the Faithful — of those who resist corruption. In a world where Pharazôn represents the pride and arrogance of the Númenorians, Inzilbêth could be a character of dramatic depth: a mother torn between love for her son and horror at the path he is following. She could be the voice of the past, of the ancient faith, of the warning against worshipping the Valar and Sauron himself. But she isn't even mentioned in the debates.

Erendis, Tar-Aldarion's wife, is another powerful figure who lies forgotten in the corners of the Unfinished Tales. She is an abandoned woman, scorned by a man whose nautical ambition speaks louder than any affection. Her story is a cruel mirror of what happens to many women in the stories of men: they are loved while they serve their plot, discarded when they claim their own space. And even though Erendis' timeline predates the events of The Rings of Power, she could be mentioned — as a symbol of the price Númenor has already exacted from its women. A legend told in the courts. A warning whispered on the island's street corners.

And if they really want to keep their feet in the "canon", why don't they talk about Lúthien? The woman who faced Morgoth himself. Who, together with Huan, the dog of Valinor, defeated Sauron. It's not fanfic: it's in the Silmarillion. But female figures are only remembered in fanart or in niche discussions, never clamoured for with the same force as Gil-Galad, Elendil, Isildur, Glorfindel, Anárion, Celebrimbor or even Celeborn. The logic is simple: when the past is male, it's glory. When it's female, it's forgotten myth.

And I'm not saying that the series is immune to criticism. It's far from it. It has problems with pace, the construction of certain arcs, and dialogue that sometimes sounds forced. But it's curious — or rather, revealing — that the most virulent criticism is directed at Galadriel. Not at Sauron, with his still nebulous motivations. Not the aesthetic choice of Númenor or the lack of exploration of certain cultures. Galadriel has become the scapegoat for a wounded masculinity.

The misogyny that hangs over these reviews is not just about what they say, but about what they choose not to say. I never see posts calling for more women in the series. Tolkien's world has incredible and fascinating women. They exist, they have always existed. The problem is that many of you never look at them with the same fervour as you do the warriors.

So, enough. No more pretending that this is about being faithful to the books. If it were, many of you would be asking for Inzilbêth, Erendis, Lúthien, Aredhel, Nienor, Berúthiel, Thuringwethil. But no. You're asking Celeborn to silence Galadriel. You're asking for silence disguised as tradition. And that, my dear, is not Tolkien. That's misogyny.

It's not wrong to want to be faithful to the original material. But it's cowardly to use this as an excuse to erase female voices that were already there — in tales, appendices, half-forgotten stories. The series has a chance to do what many books, series and films have failed to do: give space to women as agents of their own history, and not just as a silent chorus for the tragedies of men.

I want female characters. May they come, with armour or without. With wisdom, pain, fury, tenderness or glory. But let them come.

I want to see Lúthien. I want to see Inzilbêth. I want to see Berúthiel. I want to see the women that Tolkien wrote about and that fandom insists on forgetting and erasing. Because, honestly, there's nothing more "canonical" than the pain, strength and light of these women.

It's time to put aside this lazy and selective reading of Tolkien. Middle-earth is too vast a world to fit only the mould of heroes in armour and beards. It has also been shaped by women — wise, brave, charming and tragic. They have names. They have a voice. They have history. And they deserve to be told and seen.

If The Rings of Power really wants to honour Middle-earth, it shouldn't bend the knee to misogynistic clamour disguised as purism. It should dig deeper, listen to the echoes of those women who are repeatedly forgotten — and let them shine through at last. Because fidelity to Tolkien's work doesn't lie in preserving the fragile masculinity of the fans. It's in recognising the complexity of what Tolkien built — including, above all, the female characters that many insist on ignoring.

And if that bothers you, perhaps the problem was never with the series.

@spatortlove @ffaleruv

[beatrizayrees]

Since the focus isn't on romance, I think it's okay. Unfortunately, we're used to seeing Charlie with Morfydd, so it's hard not to compare. I'm not saying he won't have chemistry with another actress, but the level he reached with Miv is unmatched. But the actors are so good and I really like them, so watch it.

Just finished watching “The Survivors” on Netlfix. Mystery/crime stories are one of my favorite genres, plus it has our beloved Charlie Vickers as one of the main characters. I haven’t read the book, so I don’t know how faithful of a adaptation it is, mind you, and my opinion is merely as someone who has only watched the minisseries.

Highly recommend to anyone who enjoys mystery/thrillers. I think the show did a very job building tension, raising the stakes and throwing curveballs at the audience, keeping us guessing “what truly happened to Gabby? Who killed Bronte?”

The themes of grief and trauma (+ trauma bonding), were well handled with the complexity they deserve.

The performances are great. Both Charlie and Yerin were absolutely stellar in their roles, individually. The cast, overall, was pretty solid, acting-wise (again, can’t speak if they do their book counterpart justice or not).

For all the Charlie Vickers fans out there, there’s a lot of shirtless Charlie in this minisseries.

Overall, it’s a solid minisseries, with a good cast, amazing performances and breathtaking cinematography worth checking.

Spoilers below the cut.

Charlie ate this role; he looks at the brick of mental breakdown in almost every scene, and he handled very well the guilt and shame of being a “survivor”, as well as taking the role of the town’ scapegoat, who keeps being hated on because he’s there or because he wasn’t there. His relationship with his parents was also very well portrayed. And while one is tempted to hate on his mother, she’s also suffering from trauma. And, (I don’t know if this is explored in the book or not), there seems to exist an underlining issue between Kieran and Verity? Even before the accident, it seems like Finn was her favorite? I don’t know, I got that vibe, because Kieran said his mother would have wanted for him to died instead of his brother, and he asked why was it so hard for his mother to love him.

But, and don’t crucify me for saying this, Charlie and Yerin didn’t sold me into believing them as a couple. Kieran and Mia felt like best friends, not an actual in-love “ride or die”/“us vs. the world” couple they are supposed to be portrayed as? Charlie mentioned something about the lack of chemistry tests for the characters, and, yeah, the industry has them for a reason. But they were so good, on their own, it’s easy to overlook that.

This was the least hot kiss I’ve seen from two hot people in a while; there was no chemistry here.

Also, there should have been a bit more backstory on Kieran and Mia as a couple, instead of focusing on Kieran’s with Olivia and the threat of him cheating on Mia (the “will they, won’t they?” was kind of unnecessary when there’s already so many drama going on).

How long have these characters been together? Why did they got together in the first place? One line about university + “love at first sight” (when they already knew each other from their hometown) isn’t really believable, if you ask me (they are both hot and went for it?). Why are they together? Because it seems it’s because they were both outcasts in their hometown and have a baby together? If this is flesh-out in the book, it should have been present in the show.

Sean’s character should have been more developed throughout the minisseries for the reveal to have an actual impact. It came out of nowhere and “last man standing” approach. This is a very typical mystery formula, but it was anticlimactic, and fell flat. And how did Kieran knew that was the flashlight Sean borrowed Bronte when he was out of town for years? Don’t tell me this guy had the same flashlight for 15 years, or only owns one flashlight.

We are supposed to believe Sean has incel tendencies and hates women. But, at the very least, make him drop hints and red flags throughout the episodes for the reveal to actually feel like a pay off.

Also, I felt some plots were left a bit in the air, at the end. Did the reason why Kieran was in the caves became public knowledge or everyone kept hating on him and him protecting Olivia (that went so well with Mia, after all)? Did George Barlin face the consequences for his criminal behavior? We are told Marco followed Bronte to Evelyn Bay, and was a “violent misogynist”, but that’s it? There’s no need to elaborate on this, and the guy just goes away like it’s nothing.

[beatrizayrees]

Charlie Vickers is a phenomenal actor. I hope he gets to star in a project that has a lot of scope.

[beatrizayrees]

It's very hard to know, but I believe they will have some kind of mental connection. I don't think they will interact in person. It doesn't necessarily have to be a dialogue, but some glimpses like Galadriel had at the beginning of season two.

Just out of curiosity, what do you predict will happen between Galadriel and Sauron next season?

Because the more I think about what Charlie says about Sauron in s3, the more I can't figure out how any interaction (if there's any at all) might play out.

And I'm not talking about romantic scenes or stuff like that. Like any interaction. I can see Elrond and/or Gil-galad face Sauron, but not Galadriel. At least, not without replaying the same scene (the ep8 one) over and over (which will be boring as fuck to me).

[beatrizayrees]

the reason he wanted her to be his queen.

[beatrizayrees]

The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power Cast Recap Season 1

[beatrizayrees]

First of all, I want to make it clear: I don't intend to distort Tolkien's canon, much less force this theory on anyone. What I'm sharing here is just a free interpretation, born out of a desire to explore the silences, between the lines and poetic possibilities that Middle-earth offers us. The theory that Celebrían could be the daughter of Galadriel and Sauron may seem daring, and it is, but it doesn't seek to deny the original work. On the contrary, it is an exercise in affectionate imagination, which tries to shed light on characters that are often forgotten or underdeveloped. I am deeply grateful to anyone who takes the time to read it. May this text be an invitation, not to a truth, but to a journey.

Celebrían: between light and shadow

Ever since I began to explore the Tolkienian Legendarium and the vibrant culture of its fandom in greater depth, I have been struck by a theory that, although controversial, has provoked me intellectually in an intense way: the idea that Celebrían, traditionally the daughter of Galadriel and Celeborn, could, in an alternative universe, be the daughter of Galadriel and Sauron. This hypothesis, although not canonical, led me to revisit the character and her relationship with the world around her with a more critical, more symbolic and — why not? — more human.

Before any argument, it's important to emphasise that, yes, the canon is clear: Celebrían is the daughter of Galadriel and Celeborn. However, speculative fiction exists to allow for new perspectives, and Tolkien's universe — rich in mythology, symbolism and universal themes — offers a fertile basis for interpretations and reimaginings. The idea of a half-breed, half-maia, half-elf is not new in Arda. Lúthien, daughter of Thingol (elf) and Melian (maia), is one of the greatest examples of how miscegenation can generate powerful figures, not only in mystical power, but in emotional and spiritual complexity.

Why, then, would it be impossible or "perverse" to imagine Celebrían with this dual heritage?

In the canon, Celebrían is a marginalised figure. We know that she was married to Elrond, had three children and was captured by orcs and deeply wounded, which led her to leave Middle-earth. However, little is explored of her psychology, her inner conflicts and her journey as an elven woman born of the oldest lineage.

By proposing that she be the daughter of Galadriel and Sauron, I'm not advocating a replacement of the canon, but rather a possible expansion within a creative headcanon. Celebrían, in this scenario, would gain a layer of depth that would make her more interesting — not a corrupted character, but someone who carries the burden of a dual origin. A being whose essence is both light and shadow — and who, by choice and will, follows the path of light.

Wouldn't that be deeply Tolkienian? Tolkien didn't create flat characters; his works are, above all, about moral struggle, free will and redemption. Boromir fell. Frodo almost fell. Gollum was redeemed, albeit by accident. Gandalf and Galadriel were tempted. And even Sauron, one day, was just a maia serving Aulë.

The argument that Elrond would never accept Celebrían if he learnt of her half-maia heritage, from Sauron, seems to underestimate the character's nature. Elrond, who is himself the fruit of a mixed-race union (son of Eärendil and Elwing, therefore with elven, maia and human blood), is one of the wisest and most tolerant characters in Tolkien's work. His life was marked by difficult decisions and unconditional love — including, later, allowing his daughter to choose a mortal destiny alongside Aragorn.

If Celebrían were Sauron's daughter, that wouldn't define her as an evil being, and such thinking is reductionist and ignores one of the central pillars of Tolkien's Legendarium: free will. In Arda, evil is not inherited as an inevitable genetic curse, but arises from the choices made along an individual's journey. To reduce Celebrían to her ancestry would be to dehumanise her, denying her agency and complexity. After all, Sauron himself was not born corrupted — he was initially Mairon, a maia dedicated to order and creation, who fell of his own free will. If he had the freedom to choose darkness, why couldn't his supposed daughter choose light? Such an essentialist perspective reinforces a deterministic logic that Tolkien fought against with vigour in his work. Celebrían, even with a dark lineage, could be — and perhaps precisely because of this — one of the greatest proofs that light can be born from the midst of darkness, and that good is not hereditary property, but a personal achievement. The real narrative strength of this headcanon lies in the fact that she chose, despite her origin, to live a life of compassion, wisdom and motherhood. Wasn't it precisely this kind of moral strength that would attract Elrond? A spirit that has transcended its dark heritage — and is therefore more worthy of love?

Furthermore, the union of Celebrían and Elrond in this context would become even more significant: two beings who carry the weight of an ambiguous lineage, but who together choose to perpetuate hope.

The pessimistic view that "if you have a child of a corrupted being, you will have a corrupted being" contradicts everything Tolkien says about legacy and choice. Elladan, Elrohir and Arwen would not be "cursed" by their heritage, but enhanced by it. Arwen, in choosing the fate of men, honours the path of Lúthien, her ancestor — she is not corrupted by her heritage, but made noble by it.

What this headcanon offers is the opportunity to see these children as reflections of complexity. Arwen, for example, in choosing mortality, may not only be repeating Lúthien's story, but also freeing herself from the weight of a dark past that she carries. Elladan and Elrohir, known for their impetuosity, could have this read as an expression of an inner fire — perhaps inherited, but channelled for good.

It's important to remember that Tolkien's work recognises that even beings with great power — like the maiar — are susceptible to free will. Gandalf chose to protect. Saruman chose to dominate. And Sauron chose to corrupt. Power alone does not spell doom; it is how it is used that defines destiny.

The comment I read about this theory — "do you realise the metaphysical aspects to which you are literally condemning Celebrían?" — carries with it not only a legitimate fear, but also an interpretative limitation. The criticism is not without foundation: indeed, carrying Sauron's blood would have implications. But why do we assume that this, necessarily, means corruption?

Celebrían was not a "dark Lúthien", as has been suggested, but a new entity — moulded by her mother's choices, her father's rejection, and her own decision to follow the light. Lúthien was also a creature of immense power. If Celebrían inherited something similar — an enchanting power, a voice capable of healing or disintegrating — it would only make her richer narratively. There is no contradiction in imagining a powerful, but restrained, gentle Celebrían, marked by the ancestral shadow but determined to live in the light.

The fear that this will erase the "canonical" Celebrían — who is already quite forgettable — is understandable. But fandom doesn't have to be a binary battleground between the "real" and the "invented". We can — and should — coexist with multiple readings. Celebrían's half-maia headcanon doesn't deny its traditional version; it simply proposes a symbolic, tragic and redemptive alternative.

To defend the idea of Celebrían as Sauron's daughter is not to deny Tolkien, but to recognise that his work is so rich that it can generate multiform interpretations. This version isn't for everyone — and nor should it be. But for me, it represents something profound: the strength of a character forgotten by the canon, who gains, through the shadow, a new place in the light. And this is perhaps the most Tolkienian of narratives.

[beatrizayrees]

Yes, even Galadriel's expression as seen by him is different, the color is warmer, the expression more curious.

Mirdania: "My lord is occupied. But he wishes you good fortune on your journey."

Halbrand: "Are you asking me to leave?"

Bonus:

[beatrizayrees]

And it becomes more real because we can see it from his perspective.

Mirdania: "My lord is occupied. But he wishes you good fortune on your journey."

Halbrand: "Are you asking me to leave?"

Bonus:

[beatrizayrees]

She has this innocent air as if she doesn't know what she's feeling. Even Mirdania, for example, seems to be more mature in this regard than Galadriel.

It is important to understand that, in Tolkien's view, a marriage is only considered complete after consummation. And Galadriel did not yet have Celebrian, so I believe that this consummation did not occur.

[beatrizayrees]

Oh, yes, I understand, it's just that the issue involving sex seems like something forbidden, it's quite traditional, most of those who consume these works are not open about the subject and follow a more traditional line. But it's interesting to know that this idea is consolidated and, therefore, can be debated.

It is important to understand that, in Tolkien's view, a marriage is only considered complete after consummation. And Galadriel did not yet have Celebrian, so I believe that this consummation did not occur.

[beatrizayrees]

in this case the series makes it seem that way.

It is important to understand that, in Tolkien's view, a marriage is only considered complete after consummation. And Galadriel did not yet have Celebrian, so I believe that this consummation did not occur.

[beatrizayrees]

Since the series has undergone some changes, it is difficult to know, since a lot of information has not been presented. The relationship between Galadriel and Celeborn in the series is very vague, we don't know anything about it.

Thank you for sharing this analysis on the interpretation of the work.

It is important to understand that, in Tolkien's view, a marriage is only considered complete after consummation. And Galadriel did not yet have Celebrian, so I believe that this consummation did not occur.

[beatrizayrees]

haladriel in the multiverse.